Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The current paper offers a novel methodological approach to gathering rich spatial data from Irish English speakers, showing variation in the cognition of physical and conceptual space. A mixed method study was conducted to gather conceptual and sociolinguistic data. This includes the first part of the data gathering: a structured interview, focusing on geographic aspects of the town and two wayfinding exercises. I then describe the second part of the study: twenty cloze procedure questions relating to a written example, followed by questions relating to seventeen hand-drawn images. I take as a baseline the instruments used by, inter alia, Levinson and Wilkins (2006a) and apply them to a within-culture study. I conclude this paper by discussing replicability and future studies. While Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) offers researchers a model to connect physical and conceptual elements of space, we have not seen a large-scale study of how CMT affects the language of space in varieties of English.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Berman, R. , & Slobin, D.
    (1994) Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowerman, M.
    (1996) The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.145–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carlson, L. A. , & Hill, P. L.
    (2007) Experimental methods for studying language and space. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez , I. Mittelberg , S. Coulson , & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp.250–276). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.18.18car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.18car [Google Scholar]
  4. Cassidy, F. G.
    (1977) Notes on nicknames for places in the United States. American Speech, 52, 19–28. doi: 10.2307/454716
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454716 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chambers, J. K.
    (2002) Studying language variation: An informal epistemology. In J. K. Chambers , P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.3–14). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chilton, P.
    (2010) Introduction. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp.1–18). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Central Statistics Office of Ireland
    Central Statistics Office of Ireland (2012) Census 2011 population classified by area. Dublin: Stationary Office. www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011vol1andprofile1/Census_2011_-_Population_Classified_by_Area.pdf (Last accessed onMay 12 2016)
  8. Coventry, K. R. , & Prat-Sala, M.
    (2001) Object-specific function, geometry and the comprehension of “in” and “on”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 509–528. doi: 10.1080/713752404
    https://doi.org/10.1080/713752404 [Google Scholar]
  9. Filppula, M.
    (1991) Urban and rural varieties of Hiberno-English. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.51–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611889.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611889.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Geeraerts, D. , Kristiansen, G. , & Peirsman, Y.
    (Eds.) (2010a.) Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226461
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2010b) Introduction. In D. Geeraerts , G. Kristiansen , & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp.1–20). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226461.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Haviland, J. B.
    (1998) Guugu Yimithirr Cardinal Directions. Ethos, 26, 25–47. doi: 10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25
    https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hickey, R.
    (2005) Dublin English: Evolution and change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g35 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) Irish English: History and present-day forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551048 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kerswill, P. , & Williams, A.
    (2000) Creating a new town koiné – Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society, 29, 65–115. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500001020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001020 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kitchin, R. , & Blades, M.
    (2002) The cognition of geographic space. London: I.B. Tauris.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kortmann, B. , & Upton, C.
    (Eds.) (2008) Varieties of English. Volume 1: The British Isles. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kristiansen, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (Eds.) (2008a) Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199154
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008b) Introduction: Cognitive sociolinguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.1–20). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199154.0.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kroeger, P. R.
    (2005) Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801679
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801679 [Google Scholar]
  23. Labov, W.
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2001) Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (2003) Metaphors we live by. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, S. , Meira, S.
    , & The Language and Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (2003) 'Natural concepts' in the spatial topological domain – Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79, 485–516. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0174
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0174 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinson, S. , & Wilkins, D.
    (Eds.) (2006a) Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486753
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486753 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2006b) The background to the study of language and space. In S. Levinson & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space (pp.1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486753.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486753.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2006c) Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial description. In S. Levinson & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space (pp.512–552). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486753.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486753.015 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lucek, S.
    (2017) UP town and DOWN town: The INs and OUTs of how Navan residents conceptualise the town where they live. English Language Research, 2, 106–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Numbers [Computer software] (2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pages [Computer software] (2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , and Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Robinson, J. A.
    (2010)  Awesome insights into semantic variation. In D. Geeraerts , G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp.85–110). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226461.85
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461.85 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schilling-Estes, N.
    (2007) Sociolinguistic fieldwork. In R. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods, and applications (pp.165–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511619496.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619496.010 [Google Scholar]
  36. Solheim, R.
    (2009) Dialect development in a melting pot: The formation of a new culture and a new dialect in the industrial town of Høyanger. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 32, 191–206. doi: 10.1017/S0332586509990035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586509990035 [Google Scholar]
  37. Tagliamonte, S.
    (2006) Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801624
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801624 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wavelab LE 7 [Computer software] (2011).
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wolf, H. -G. , & Polzenhagen, F.
    (2009) World Englishes. A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199222
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199222 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error